Re: Minnesota to block online gambling sites?

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

Jeremy McDermond wrote:
> manner that Minnesota seeks.  In this case the First Amendment may be 
> applicable because this seems to be a prior restraint on speech.  
> Additionally, it is content based because it seeks to restrict speech 
> due to its transmission or reception of gambling information.  This 

Well, one does have to wonder if first applies, as there is perfectly 
legal information on some of those sites(ie, reading about strategy is 
not illegal). I believe some of those listed also had support for 
freeplay, which is not illegal (and probably why gambling sites like to 
combine the two).


Jack